You are here

essays/arguments for animal rights?

It's pretty hard to track down threads on this sort of thing, you can imagine the number of results from the search function.If we have one of these threads already please just merge this one into it.

I've written and posted on the internet two essays regarding animal rights. One I wrote a few years ago and should probably read again. It's no doubt in a cringe worthy style I'll hate to read.The other I wrote to begin with to get out anxiety at parents. But then quickly it devolved into a human VS animal rights in a social context.

To-nights one is on top (or if I've added future ones, the one on the 25th of December 2009) and the old one is on the bottom (I made the blog well after writing the first one, it's from over 12 months ago, despite what the date says).

After spending years debating AGAINST animal rights, I never encountered a single rational argument in their favor. However, the argument that was most difficult to argue against was the good old "what if an army of technologically-superior extraterrestrials comes to earth and decides to treat us the same way we ourselves treat lesser animals here on Earth" hyperbole. In other words a complete mis-attribution of the burden of proof through baseless speculation mixed with wishful thinking. It wouldn't win you any points in a truly rational debate, but at least it will make the people debating against you sweat a little bit - which actually is quite healthy for us.

After spending years debating AGAINST animal rights, I never encountered a single rational argument in their favor. However, the argument that was most difficult to argue against was the good old "what if an army of technologically-superior extraterrestrials comes to earth and decides to treat us the same way we ourselves treat lesser animals here on Earth" hyperbole. In other words a complete mis-attribution of the burden of proof through baseless speculation mixed with wishful thinking. It wouldn't win you any points in a truly rational debate, but at least it will make the people debating against you sweat a little bit - which actually is quite healthy for us.

Even if you only come from the 'animal welfare' point of view, which IIRC, seems to be Lib's stand from what I've seen of his other postings, that means you're against causing animals 'unnecessary suffering' given that using animals for human purposes is completely unnecessary, doesn't that mean that it's wrong to deliberately inflict any suffering?

The only alternative to using animals for human purposes is killing them.

How is that supposed to make sense? First, killing animals IS using them for human purposes...one is just a means to the same end. Second, allowing animals to flourish in their natural environments, free of harrassment, is the only true alternative to using animals for human purposes. We do not have to destroy everything we touch, believe it or not.

My view on rights is now one that holds the concepts of rights, be them lawful or moral, to not be a complete account of how we ought to act in society. Something is clearly missing. I'm mainly in favour of pointing out the argument for marginal cases.

The whole issue of if rights are extended to all humans, on he basis that they're human, that is speciesist. Furthermore that some humans have less cognitive ability, as rights based arguers often make a reference to intelligence then pointing out the inconsistencies in giving humans with lower based cognitive abilities rights whilst with-holding the rights from non human animals with higher cognitive abilities than the said human, is contradictory.

I've made a thread on another forum, depending on how that pans out (no-ones replied in over a day, I've reformatted it, and a mod is interested in it, so I'm sure it will pick up relatively soon) I might post the link here.

After spending years debating AGAINST animal rights, I never encountered a single rational argument in their favor. However, the argument that was most difficult to argue against was the good old "what if an army of technologically-superior extraterrestrials comes to earth and decides to treat us the same way we ourselves treat lesser animals here on Earth" hyperbole. In other words a complete mis-attribution of the burden of proof through baseless speculation mixed with wishful thinking. It wouldn't win you any points in a truly rational debate, but at least it will make the people debating against you sweat a little bit - which actually is quite healthy for us.

Good luck. ;)b

My own personal views are significantly changing away from rights. The whole topic is actually about animal interest arguments, but that's taken by most humans to mean animal rights. Which is really linked very specifically mainly to Regan.I'm curious, what is your view on the argument for marginal cases?